MR TEH CHEANG WAN'S DEATH (Statement by the Prime Minister)

11.55 am

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with sadness that I make this statement on the suicide of Mr Teh Cheang Wan.

On Sunday, 14th of December last year, at about 9.10 am at my home, my security officer, Insp. Ho Wah Hui, told me that Mr Teh's S/O, Sgt Richard Kua, had come, rrying a letter given to him by Mrs Teh for me. Mrs Teh had told him that Teh Cheang Wan's body was found cold in bed at about 8.00 am.

I opened the envelope and read the undated note. It read:

'Prime Minister

I have been feeling very sad and depressed for the last 2 weeks.

I feel responsible for the occurence of this unfortunate incident and I feel I should accept full responsibility. As an honourable oriental gentleman, I feel it is only right that I should pay the highest penalty for my mistake.

Yours faithfully,

(Sgd) Teh Cheang Wan"

I noted "9.15" as the time I read it, on the corner of the envelope. Then I rang up Mrs Teh at her home. She gave me her account of how she discovered that Teh Cheang Wan had not awakened from his sleep. I asked if a doctor had been called to certify his death. She handed the telephone to her daughter, Dr Teh Kwan Geok, who said that they were paging for Dr Charles Toh, the physician who had been treating Teh Cheang Wan for his high blood pressure.

The daughter said her mother hoped the cremation would not be delayed by an autopsy. I said that depended on whether the doctor would certify that the death was natural. I said I would visit them later.

I immediately rang up the Cabinet Secretary, Mr Wong Chooi Sen, and then my colleague, Goh Chok Tong. I asked them both to go over to Mrs Teh to render what help was needed. I asked Wong Chooi Sen to ring me up when Dr Charles Toh had examined the body.

At about 11.10 am Wong Chooi Sen informed me that Dr Charles Toh had examined the body but could not certify that death was by natural causes. My wife and I went over to visit Mrs Teh at Jalan Bukit Tunggal. She was not happy at an autopsy but agreed that an autopsy had to be held. I showed her the handwritten letter by Teh Cheang Wan that she had handed to the S/O for me.

That Sunday evening, 14th of December, Dr Kwa Soon Bee, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Health, told me over the telephone that the death was caused by an overdose of Amytal barbiturate.

On Tuesday, 16th of December, I wrote a letter of condolence to Mrs Teh and to acknowledge the significant contributions Teh Cheang Wan has made in the HDB. I knew then that there would have to be a Coroner's inquest which would disclose his suicide and the reasons for it.

Members have read the evidence placed before the Coroner at the inquest on the 20th January. The Director of the CPIB, Mr Evan Yeo, had seen me on the 21st November on a complaint of corruption against Teh Cheang Wan. I asked that investigations be discreet because once people come to know that the CPIB was investigating so prominent a Minister as that for National Development, the news would spread like wildfire. The Ministry of National Development has more opportunities for corrupt practices than any other. A Minister's reputation would be put to severe test by an investigation. Such an investigation could not be kept secret. Therefore, once open investigations had started, they would have to go on until all the evidence is uncovered to show either that the complaints are baseless, or that there is enough evidence to submit to the Attorney-General for him to place before a Court of Law for trial and judgment.

On 27th November, the Director of the CPIB wrote to me giving a summary of the evidence he had gathered and asked for my permission for an open investigation. I was satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to do so. On 28th November I approved open investigations.

On 2nd December, the Director and his Senior Assistant Director, Mr Tan Ah Leak, for the first time interrogated Teh Cheang Wan at the Istana Villa. They confronted him with Liaw Teck Kee, the contractor, who said that he, as the intermediary, had handed two sums of $500,000 each to Teh Cheang Wan. The Director was satisfied that Liaw was a truthful witness. He reported this to me. I asked the Cabinet Secretary, Wong Chooi Sen, to ask Teh Cheang Wan to take leave of absence until the 31st December. By then the investigations would have been completed and the Attorney-General would have decided whether or not to prosecute. The Investigation Paper was sent to the Attorney-General on the 11th December. Teh Cheang Wan died on the 14th December.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we all know Teh Cheang Wan. He was a man of considerable ability. Behind his diffident manner and demeanour and his Hokkien-accented ungrammatical English was a sharp clear mind. After open investigations started, we did not meet. I received a letter from him dated Saturday, 13th December 1986, that morning. The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of National Development, Mr Koh Cher Siang, told Mr Dhanabalan, the present Minister for National Development, that he was on overseas leave and was recalled by Teh Cheang Wan to vet his draft and correct his grammar. Mr Teh's personal assistant typed the letter before he signed it. It was identical in terms to a letter he sent to the Director of the CPIB on the same date. In his letter he denied the charge that he had on two occasions been given half a million dollars of which he kept $400,000 and gave Mr Liaw, the contractor, $100,000. He went on to write on page 4 of his letter (13th December):

'If I am brought to trial, the very process of it which will be painful and long, will certainly be the end of me even if I am found innocent.'

The Attorney-General received the Investigation Paper from the Director of the CPIB on the 11th December. After Teh Cheang Wan's death on the 14th, the Attorney-General could not proceed with the charges he was considering.

Sir, there is no way a Minister can avoid investigations, and a trial if there is evidence to support one. Teh Cheang Wan chose death rather than face a trial on the charges of corruption which the Attorney-General had yet to settle. The effectiveness of our system to check and to punish corruption rests, first, on the law against corruption contained in the Prevention of Corruption Act; second, on a vigilant public ready to give information on all suspected corruption; and third, on a CPIB which is scrupulous, thorough, and fearless in its investigations. For this to be so, the CPIB has to receive the full backing of the Prime Minister under whose portfolio it comes. But the strongest deterrent is in a public opinion which censures and condemns corrupt persons, in other words, in attitudes which make corruption so unacceptable that the stigma of corruption cannot be washed away by serving a prison sentence.

Sir, Members must share my profound regret that Teh Cheang Wan who has made such a signal contribution to Singapore's development should have ended his career and his life in this manner and in these circumstances.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, can I ask the Prime Minister a question? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the two cases for which the late Minister was investigated are now closed, or whether investigations will continue?

The Prime Minister: Investigation for the first charge which had gone up to the Attorney-General, namely, with regard to a land acquisition appeal over which a sum of $500,000 was said to have been paid to Teh Cheang Wan is completed. The second investigation relating to the sale of Government land to the owners of the River View Hotel is open and charges have not yet been brought because some witnesses are still out of jurisdiction.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Can the Hon. Prime Minister inform the House whether any steps will be taken to recover the $800,000 alleged to have been taken by the late Minister, if it can be proven that he did indeed receive that sum of money?

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Prevention of Corruption Act provides in Article 14 for the recovery, by the principal, of any amount given by way of a secret gift. Members would have read that Teh Cheang Wan had offered to pay the $800,000 if he did not have to face charges. There is, therefore, legal provision for the recovery of the sums that were paid not only from the recipient but also from the giver; but only once, either from the recipient or from the giver.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask of the Hon. Prime Minister to enlighten the House as to whether there is any possibility that the CPIB officials who interviewed Mr Teh could have misconstrued Mr Teh's intention behind his offer to pay $800,000 to settle the matter?

The Prime Minister: The investigators were extremely scrupulous and careful in this case. The Director had seen me and I had explained to him the gravamen of the charges and, therefore, there was a statement to this effect which was signed by Teh Cheang Wan, and it is in the files.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can the Prime Minister tell us whether any other persons, in particular, officials of the Ministry of National Development, are implicated in the allegations for which the late Minister was being investigated?

The Prime Minister: The investigations have not disclosed the complicity of any other person in the Ministry. There was in the case of the land acquisition an unusualness in the procedure. The land having been acquired, an appeal was lodged. It usually takes six months to a year for the appeal to be heard and for it to go before the Minister for his decision. In this case, the appeal was never heard, and the Minister intervened and gave his decision without an appeal ever being heard. No complicity by any official was involved. It was the Minister's personal intervention. Therefore, the officers of the CPIB who conducted this investigation are satisfied that there was no complicity and no aiding and abetting by any official of the Ministry or any other Permanent Secretary or Minister or Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Prime Minister, in the process of the investigation of these two cases of alleged corruption, were there other instances of alleged corruption involving Mr Teh surfaced in the process of this investigation during the period of the investigation in the last few weeks?

The Prime Minister: Can I have the question again? Is the Member asking whether, as a result of this investigation, further crimes were disclosed?

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Yes. My question was whether further instances of corruption have surfaced as a result of the investigation.

The Prime Minister: The question is ambiguous, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, but I will answer both interpretations. One interpretation would be: did the investigations unravel or reveal further wrongdoings connected with the investigations? No, they did not. They were two specific instances of corruption. But since the launching of the investigations, of course, further information of suspicions of corrupt practices have been made and are being pursued. It is, I am told, normal in the circumstances that all hints, dark thoughts, suspicions, will inevitably surface and it will take considerable effort and time to sieve out reality from imagination.

The most important objective of the Government or of the investigators is to see if any system had been altered which would enable corrupt practices to take place. This is of the utmost importance because unless they are detected and the original system restored, then a loophole would have been created in the administrative procedures which inevitably at some stage or another may be taken advantage of by other officers or Ministers some other time.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Prime Minister, you have just spoken of the system. We have heard that the system that you have is for Ministers to declare their assets and their wives' and children's assets to you. In the light of one of your senior Ministers having taken bribes, do you feel that you need to review this system of yours and perhaps get Ministers and PAP Members, including myself, to make a declaration of their assets and their families' assets at the beginning of each year?

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would be grateful to the Member for Potong Pasir if he would make any proposal which could either prevent, check or make detection of corruption by any Minister or any MP or any public servant easier.

The declaration of assets is useful in that if assets are found to exceed what has been declared, an explanation has to be offered. There were no assets that exceeded what Mr Teh Cheang Wan had declared. Even if it had been made public to all Members of Parliament and to the public, there were no such assets. People who embark on this method of getting rich, particularly if they are able, do not leave such obvious traces behind. And the CPIB, thorough as they are and professional as they are, have not been able to come up with assets not declared.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Prime Minister, Sir, it was you in this House who said that you knew how much each of your PAP MP was worth. Do you not think that if the assets of each MP were made public, for the scrutiny of the whole Singapore population, it would be better than the scrutiny of one man?

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we face a very natural problem of privacy. I am not against publication because there can be no damage to anyone. But I speak from experience that for the same reasons that the Member for Potong Pasir does not want to disclose what his income is as a lawyer, what his assets are, the value of his goodwill or the capital that he has in his firm, so other Members feel that a certain privacy is necessary. It is already difficult enough to get good men to be candidates, to bare their public lives to close scrutiny. Those countries which have implemented these systems, like the United States of America, only recently have had their press gloat over the spending habits of their public officials. I remember, and this is just off the top of my head from memory, how the best dressed man in the Carter Administration was one of its poorest, Mr Andy Young. "But he loved fine clothes", wrote the writer, "and other raiments and ornaments." I did not think that helped in getting good men to serve an administration. But that is the American system and I wish them well.

I do not think much purpose is served today by a debate on my statement on Teh Cheang Wan. But if the Member for Potong Pasir believes that this is a method of stopping corruption and an effective one, let us debate it. He can file a motion. One of our MPs will second it. We can have a full debate. Today I suggest he confines his searching questions to this particular case. I have said that in this particular case no extra assets have been disclosed. He was an able man. There were no secret bank accounts. There were no assets.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, much has been said of the new house of the late Minister at Bukit Tunggal Road. Was this declared by the late Minister?

The Prime Minister: It was. More than that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: How much is it worth?

The Prime Minister: The house was declared to have been built for $1.5 million. More than that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The Minister wrote to inform me that he wanted to build this house. I speak from memory now but I could produce the letters, perhaps three or four years ago. I wrote back and asked if the contractor was in any way connected with HDB work. The answer came. He was. I advised in writing, in reply, that he should get himself a contractor not connected with the HDB. A year or a year and a half later, he wrote back to say that he had such a contractor and asked if I had any objections. I said, "No. Proceed." The house was built. I visited it for the first time on the morning of his death.

Mr Chiam See Tong: One more supplementary question, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The last one.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The late Mr Teh Cheang Wan's son has been away all this while. Is the CPIB making attempts to get him back to Singapore to help them in their investigations?

The Prime Minister: No.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have several questions to ask the Prime Minister and I would like to preamble them with this.

It is indeed a tragic moment for us all that such a thing has happened to the Government, a government which has for more than two decades upheld the principle of clean and honest government. However, it is wrong to say that what we have held so dear for so long have all come down in pieces. Regrettable and deplorable though this incident may be, it is reassuring to know that the Government right from the beginning has the courage and determination ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you making a speech?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: No. I am just preambling my questions.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Could you proceed with your questions, please?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: There are several questions which I would like to ask.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Could you ask your questions now?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: It is rather difficult to frame them if I do not preamble them with ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. This is a Ministerial statement.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I have listed down the questions here but I would like to explain why I am asking them.

Mr Deputy Speaker: A Ministerial statement has been made. I can only allow you to ask questions but I cannot allow you to make a speech. Could you proceed with your questions?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Yes. In that case, I would just make it short by saying that there have been some allegations about cover-up in high places. But I for one would not subscribe to such wild talk. Corruption cases in other countries are normally exposed by the mass media or the opposition parties. But this one was brought to the surface as a result of the Government's self-imposed discipline, and that is the difference. And the events in the last two months have shown that the Prime Minister did not take the easy way out, the so-called cover-up. He has made the decision to ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jek, could you ask your questions?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: What I would like to ask the Prime Minister is this. Since he has made that very painful decision for the investigation to proceed, he must have known that this would be bad and damaging for the Government's image, and yet he was courageous enough to make it. And we have very good reasons to be confident that the next Prime Minister would also do the same. But what about the next and the next? I am therefore interested to hear the views of the Prime Minister on how do we institutionalize procedures in Government departments so that in future when such cases are brought up, no one, not even the Prime Minister of the day, has the power to stop them. How do we lay trip wires in strategic places so that once certain boundaries are crossed alarm bells will sound everywhere.

Another question I want to raise is, how do we make the CPIB adopt more active ways in carrying out their duties, like the CID or the ISD, and not continue with the present passive way, waiting for complaints to come in and then start investigating. The ISD, for instance, in the past infiltrated into communist organizations and smoked the communists out. The CPIB in this instance did not seem to suspect anything until someone had put in a complaint. How was it possible that they did not become alert when a Minister had suddenly adopted a lifestyle very different from his outward appearance? It was not difficult to know ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jek, you are making a speech again. Can you ask your next question?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: But I am explaining the question now.

Mr Deputy Speaker: There is no need to. Mr Jek, are you asking your next question? If not, I shall ask you to resume your seat.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I am now asking the third question.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right, ask your third question.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: The third question is, what is the Government going to do with the middleman? Graft taking is like drug taking. Under our laws the drug taker when caught is jailed and rehabilitated, and the drug trafficker is hanged. In this particular case, the alleged graft taker had paid the penalty with his life. But what are we going to do with the drug trafficker? I feel very strongly that we should deal even more harshly with such persons, for if we have less such people who throw names around, who think they can buy anyone with money, who claim they can fix anything with Ministers, there will be less corruption in society. They are the instigators and perpetrators of corruption.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jek, I am warning you. You are making a speech.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: My last question would be ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: No, I cannot allow that any more. Would you please resume your seat.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: My last question will be ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: No, Mr Jek. Will you please resume your seat?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: I am at a loss as to what I am supposed to answer. I will pick up his last statement about drug traffickers and bribe traffickers. I assume the question is, are we prosecuting Mr Liaw Teck Kee? The answer is no, because the CPIB had to depend on Mr Liaw Teck Kee's cooperation to ensure that the charge in court would stick. He was an accomplice but his evidence was necessary. To prosecute Mr Liaw Teck Kee would be counter-productive. He was not the giver. He was just the go-between. He was not the taker. He was just the go-between.

As for the system, there can be no sudden burst of creative management which will put up new trip wires all over the place. The system has evolved over the decades with checks and balances. In the Ministry of National Development they have been worked out to a fine art. All tenders are sealed. They are opened by a committee. There are rules as to how tenders are awarded based on the tenders received. We cannot conceive of any more trip wires. If we can, we might be like some of these houses with burglar alarms where the tenant regularly trips them up and not the burglar.

The simple answer is, there is no assurance that standards will not go down. Every part of the 27 1/2 years that we have been in office have meant a certain upholding of standards. It is very easy and very natural to allow them to slacken and to sag. We do that at our peril. We are not an established society in a continent of other established societies like Europe. We are a very young one, situated in an area where we know that to do business requires a certain flexibility.

When Intraco was first formed, we had hilarious episodes of how Intraco officers in order to do business in foreign lands, like Africa, the principal trading officer had to take a fellow officer along to witness the actual gift that was proffered in order that one other officer could countersign that there was such a gift and that it was handed over and not taken by the giver. It is a complex and complicated business of life. The Americans constituted a commission of some sort after the Lockheed scandal and they required all corporate managers to report certain methods of payment. But if they comply with those self-imposed restraints they will find that it is very difficult to sell either American arms or aircraft against the competition of other countries without those constraints, and that is a fact of life.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there was mention of cover-up. Why did the Government not make a public announcement that the former Minister for National Development was under CPIB investigations for the period from 28th November to 19th January?

The Prime Minister: Do I understand the Member for Potong Pasir right, from 28th November to 19th January?

Mr Chiam See Tong indicated yes.

The Prime Minister: I am flummoxed. Do we want to announce to the world that the CPIB has commenced investigations on a Minister in charge of a very heavy portfolio before they know the outcome of the investigations?

Mr Chiam See Tong: An announcement that there was an investigation by the CPIB. Perhaps the Prime Minister would know that the news had been circulating two, three, four times around Singapore. Does the Prime Minister not think that it would be better if there was a proper announcement? It would perhaps save more anguish for members of Mr Teh's family.

The Prime Minister: I dispute that.

Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether proceedings are to be instituted to recover the $200,000 allegedly received by Mr Liaw?

The Prime Minister: That point has not been considered by me. I do not know if the Attorney-General has considered the point. I would imagine that it is completely legal to require the return of the money. I am not sure what the CPIB itself would wish, because this will not be the last time it will require the cooperation of an intermediary.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Hon. Prime Minister whether the giver of the bribe under our system is liable for punishment? If so, I think it can serve as a form of deterrence against bribes and corruptions, Sir.

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is. Where possible, they are also punished. But the perfect bribe, as the Director of CPIB has explained to me many a time, is the satisfied giver and the satisfied receiver, with no intermediaries, no witnesses, no evidence. In this particular case, there was an intermediary and therefore it may not be necessary to have the cooperation of the giver. But for the land acquisition case, the original giver may have died. It was an estate.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: Sir, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the CPIB investigation has established as to why the said Mr Liaw Teck Kee choose to report the alleged corruption only after a lapse of four or five years?

The Prime Minister: He did not choose to report. The CPIB called upon him for information. The original information the CPIB received had nothing to do with Mr Liaw.